Published by:

American Writers & Artists Inc.

101 SE 6th Avenue, Suite A
Delray Beach, FL 33483
Phone: 561-278-5557
Fax: 561-278-5929
Website: www.awaionline.com

© American Writers & Artists Inc. All rights reserved.

Protected by copyright laws of the United States and international treaties.
No part of this publication in whole or in part may be copied, duplicated,
reproduced transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system,
without the express permission from the publisher.
Copyright and other intellectual property laws protect these materials and any unauthorized
reproduction or retransmission will constitute an infringement of copyright law.
Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized
reproduction, distribution, or exhibition of copyrighted materials. Penalties for
criminal and statutory copyright infringement are set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2319.
CSRCOK
 AWAI’s Headline & Lead
Peer Review Process

The Purpose:

The purpose of AWAI’s Peer Review Process,

developed by Mark Morgan Ford, is to
get a quick but realistic idea if the copy
presented is working and then to
suggest specific ways to improve it.

The Strategy:

To accelerate progress and discourage distractions, the peer review program is

designed to prevent any and all negative comments and encourage positive
suggestions.

There are two processes involved. The first is evaluative. In this part participants
“rate” copy based not on what they believe copywriting should be but on how
strongly the copy in question affects them as a potential customer.


The aim of this process is to simulate, as
much as possible, the actual direct response The first is evaluative.

AWAI’s Headline & Lead Peer Review Process 1

 environment the copy will eventually have to perform in. In other words, when you
evaluate copy, you are responding as if you were the prospect – who just received
this promotion in the mail. To make this process work, participants need to provide
their gut reactions immediately and express them in numeric terms on a 1 to 4 scale
(explained below).

The second process is creative. Here participants focus on areas in the copy that
need work indicated by the averaged numeric responses. Guided by certain key
questions, participants offer specific, positive suggestions that would in some way
improve the strength of the copy. These


suggestions can include change of words,
moving blocks of copy, or formatting The second process is creative.
suggestions.

Each suggestion offered is subjected to this test: participants are asked if the new
copy is Better, Worse or Neutral? The responses should be quick. This is a gut
reaction, based on your emotional response to the copy in the same way a prospect
would respond.

 This is a gut reaction, based on your emotional response

to the copy in the same way a prospect would respond.

Players:

1. Facilitator:
Asks the questions, enforces the rules, and keeps things moving in a timely
manner. This is your group leader. In Circle of Success Peer Reviews, the
instructor holds this position. The facilitator also acts as the Time Keeper,
making sure the review moves crisply and doesn’t bog down. She or he also
acts as the Scorekeeper. She or he tabulates and averages the scores.

2 AWAI’s Headline & Lead Peer Review Process

 2. Participants:
This is you, the copywriter who has submitted either a headline or lead
for review.

The copywriter who wrote the copy is a passive player in this effort – neither
commenting nor explaining. He/she may be asked a few questions by the
facilitator prior to having the copy reviewed. After the copy is read, the
copywriter is then free to listen, take notes and observe reactions to the
copy from the group.

 The copywriter who wrote the copy is a passive player in this effort –
neither commenting nor explaining. He/she may be asked a
few questions by the facilitator prior to having the copy reviewed.
After the copy is read, the copywriter is then free to listen,
take notes and observe reactions to the copy from the group.

Rules:

The most important rule is to follow the rules.

1. This program is very different from what is generally done in similar creative
environments. Most participants may find it difficult to follow at first. To make
the session work, the facilitator must be very determined not to allow
individuals to throw progress off course by allowing undesired (but
sometimes almost irresistible) behaviors.

To make the program work, there must be…

 No criticisms
 No explanations
 No comments

AWAI’s Headline & Lead Peer Review Process 3

 
2. If a participant engages in any of these
three behaviors, the facilitator will politely To make the program work,
get them back on track, reminding the there must be…
participant to express only positive,
actionable suggestions to improve the copy.  No criticisms
 No explanations
3. For the peer review process to work
effectively there should be at least  No comments
4 participants.

4. The copywriter gives a brief description of the product his copy is selling
and any other pertinent information requested by the facilitator. In headlines
peer reviews, he then reads the copy aloud. In lead peer reviews, he reads
the headlines. The rest of the participants read the remaining lead copy.

5. Once all suggestions are given to the copywriter, the copywriter decides
which suggestions to keep and should re-write the copy within 24 hours.
This is because all the comments and the emotions that accompany them
are fresh in memory and can be easily integrated. Then the copywriter is
ready to go onto the rest of the package.

 PART I: Scoring Guidelines

Before beginning, the facilitator will ask the copywriter a few questions. The
answers must be brief and factual – not a dissertation. These questions are:
 What is the product?
 Who is the prospect?
 What is the price of the product? (If known)
 What is the lead archetype? (For leads peer reviews)

 Before beginning, the facilitator will ask the copywriter a few questions.
The answers must be brief and factual – not a dissertation.

4 AWAI’s Headline & Lead Peer Review Process

 These answers give the group a lens through which the copy is viewed. The
facilitator will not skip this part, as it is essential to the relevancy and effectiveness of
the scores and comments.

Once the prospect and product has been identified, facilitator asks the group to
evaluate the copy based on their gut-level response only giving it scores from 1 to 4.
It’s possible to include decimal fractions such as 1.8, 2.6; 3.2. Numbers of two
decimal places like 2.85 are not allowed.

Value of the numbers:

4 = 100% certainty that you would read on
3 = Probably would read on; has some interest
2 = Might read on; not very compelling
1 = 100% certainty that you would not
read further  Value of the numbers.

Be quick about giving your score when the facilitator asks for it. Remember, gut-
level responses only. It’s your first, emotional reaction that is needed for this to work.

Once all the scores have been given, the facilitator takes an average that should
result in a number between 1 and 4.

After the average is given, the creative, Copy Suggestion phase of the process
begins. The specifics vary depending on whether you headline or lead are reviewed.

 PART II: Evaluating the Headline/Teaser

Before beginning, the facilitator asks the copywriter the questions described
above. Once the prospect and product have been identified, the facilitator asks the
copywriter to read the


headline/teaser and asks
the other participants to Before beginning, the facilitator asks the
evaluate it on the 1 to 4
copywriter the questions described above.
scale described above.

AWAI’s Headline & Lead Peer Review Process 5

 The headline is evaluated according to the following criteria:
 Is it arresting? How well does it catch my interest?
 Is it compelling? Do I want to read further?

If the copy scores above 3.5, the facilitator will congratulate the writer and
encourages them to continue with their promo.

If the headline/teaser scored less than 2.8, the facilitator will suggest that the
copy needs to be reworked before being reviewed. The facilitator then asks the
group if they have any suggestions for an idea or a direction that the new copy might
take. Limit this discussion to no more than 5 minutes.

If the headline/teaser scored anything between 2.8 and 3.5, then the facilitator
will lead the group through the Peer Review Copy Suggestion process to help
improve the copy.

The facilitator asks the group for copy-specific suggestions, one at a time.


ALL SUGGESTIONS MUST BE
COPY-SPECIFIC. . .no commentaries or
The facilitator asks the
discussions or explanations are allowed
at this time. Even though you might be group for copy-specific
tempted to explain why you’re making
the suggestion you’re making, refrain
suggestions, one at a time.
from doing so. . . (See Rule 1 above.)

When someone makes a suggestion, the facilitator then asks the participants if the
copy suggestion is Better, Worse or Neutral. (Variations of “stronger; weaker, are also
permitted). This will usually suggest a direction for the copywriter to take with his copy.

 When someone makes a suggestion, the facilitator then asks

the participants if the copy suggestion is Better, Worse or Neutral.
(Variations of “stronger; weaker, are also permitted). This will usually
suggest a direction for the copywriter to take with his copy.

6 AWAI’s Headline & Lead Peer Review Process

 If the group is having trouble coming up with suggestions, the facilitator may help
the group evaluate the headline by asking these questions:

 Is the promise big – one that the prospect should greatly desire?

 Is the promise deep – i.e., does it involve more than one

need/desire?

The facilitator will tally up the number of Yes and No responses. Answering these
two questions may suggest a direction for the copywriter to take with the copy.

If there is no clear consensus about suggested improvements to copy, the

copywriter is free to take or reject the suggestions. If the consensus strongly favors
the suggested improvement, the copywriter is urged to incorporate it in his copy.

 PART III: Evaluating the Lead

Lead copy submitted for evaluation is usually 1-2 pages (300-600 words).
If the copy submitted is longer, the facilitator will limit the amount to be evaluated
and determine how much of the lead will be read/rated. The headline may be
evaluated with the lead.

The overall effectiveness of the lead is determined by having all the participants
other than the copywriter who submitted the copy read it and then provide, in
numeric form, their gut reaction to it — as consumers.

 Lead copy submitted for evaluation is usually 1-2 pages

(300-600 words). If the copy submitted is longer, the facilitator will
limit the amount to be evaluated and determine how much of the
lead will be read/rated. The headline may be evaluated with the lead.

AWAI’s Headline & Lead Peer Review Process 7

 Value of the numbers:

4 = “I’m really glad I’m reading this”

3 = Probably would read on; has some interest

2 = Not sure

1 = Toss it

To evaluate the strength of the lead, the facilitator will ask a question
such as this:

How strongly does this lead hook you? In other words, to what extent
does it make you want to settle back in your chair and read further?

If the headline/teaser scores above 3.2, the facilitator will congratulate the writer
and ask if he/she would like to keep it as is or get some suggestions for improvement.

If the lead scored 2.8 or less, then the facilitator will suggest that the copy needs
to be reworked before being reviewed. He will then ask the group if they have any
suggestions for an idea or a direction that the new copy might take. This discussion
is usually limited to no more than 5 minutes.

If the lead scores between a 2.8 and 3.2 the facilitator compliments the writer and
then asks for suggestions from the participants to bring it up to the 3.2 level.

At this point, the facilitator asks for specific copy changes. These changes might
include specific words, phrases or blocks of copy that could be inserted to create the
desired effect. Suggestions can also involve moving blocks of copy around (usually
from lower in the lead to closer to the
front) or formatting changes.

To help participants make copy

specific suggestions for the lead, the
 To help participants make copy
specific suggestions for the lead,
facilitator may use this technique:
the facilitator may use this technique.

8 AWAI’s Headline & Lead Peer Review Process

 Often there are blocks of copy that are strong but need to be moved forward. The
facilitator may ask participants to identify:

 The strongest phrase or sentence in the lead.

 Ask them if it would help if it were emphasized/made more specific or

brought forward – and if so, where should it be moved?

After each offered suggestion, other members of the group are polled as to
whether they think the new suggestions improve the existing copy responding with
Better, Worse or Neutral. (Variations of “stronger, weaker, etc. are also permitted).

Wrap Up:

The facilitator will indicate when it is time to move on to the next piece of copy and
then asks the copywriter if the specific blocks of copy and positioning directions
were communicated clearly. The facilitator briefly clarifies any concerns and then
moves on to the next writer’s copy.

Note: This review process is intended for the Headline and Lead portion of a
package. Once the headline and lead have been finalized, the back of the promotion
should be critiqued according to the CUBA method (Confusing, Unbelievable, Boring
or Awkward).

AWAI’s Headline & Lead Peer Review Process 9